The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), mediated by the World Bank in 1960 between India and Pakistan, has for six decades been one of the world’s most cited examples of enduring transboundary water cooperation. The treaty allocates the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and grants primary rights over the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, while providing India with limited technical rights for storage and hydropower on the western system. Its structured institutional framework, including the Permanent Indus Commission and dispute resolution through Neutral Expert review and Court of Arbitration, was designed to manage conflict and ensure compliance.
However, in April 2025, India declared the treaty to be placed in “abeyance”, a term that has no explicit basis within the IWT and, in practice, allows India to suspend treaty obligations unilaterally without invoking formal dispute resolution. International water law experts emphasise that this is not a neutral semantic change; it effectively breaches binding obligations and bypasses mechanisms designed specifically to avert unilateral action. By leveraging the term “abeyance,” India masks a de facto suspension of obligations under the guise of legal terminology, raising grave concerns about transparency, equity, and legality in treaty governance.
The consequences of this unilateral decision are immediate and profound for Pakistan. Millions depend on consistent flows from the western rivers for irrigation, hydropower, and potable water. Actions such as offseason reservoir release adjustments, including reservoir flushing at Baglihar and Salal, have been carried out without prior notification, undermining the treaty’s data exchange and cooperation requirements and jeopardising seasonal water management.
Legal analyses allege that India’s actions violate the foundational international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, which affirms that treaties must be honoured. The unilateral suspension ignores the IWT’s dispute resolution architecture, undermining the confidence other states place in treaty-based water governance globally. Rather than resolving issues within the treaty framework, through the Permanent Indus Commission or arbitration, India’s path weakens mechanisms designed to prevent escalation. This sets a dangerous precedent for other transboundary basins worldwide.
The unilateral move is not only a blatant breach of international norms but also a dangerous precedent for transboundary water governance globally.
Critically, the issue is not limited to headline disputes over storage and hydropower. There are emerging environmental concerns linked to cross-border pollution that have received scant attention in mainstream Pakistani outlets. India’s urban and industrial growth along shared waterways has led to untreated sewage discharges, industrial effluents, and river contamination, which flow downstream into Pakistan, affecting water quality and public health. These transboundary environmental harms contravene internationally recognised environmental law norms and stand in contrast to India’s positioning as a defender of sustainable development. Downstream communities in Sindh and Punjab regularly report increased waterborne diseases and agricultural losses linked to degraded water quality, yet these impacts remain underacknowledged in mainstream discourse.
Beyond law and politics, the human rights dimension is stark. Access to safe and adequate water is recognised under international human rights frameworks. Unilateral actions that jeopardise predictable access to water for vulnerable populations in Pakistan, particularly in agricultural districts dependent on Indus flows, translate into practical human rights harms, affecting food security, economic stability, and health.
Climate change further complicates the landscape. Altered glacier melt patterns, erratic monsoons, and extreme weather make predictable water management essential. In this context, treaty abeyance exacerbates uncertainty, undermining coordinated adaptation efforts necessary for resilience.
The situation now demands renewed international scrutiny. Legal scholars, environmental specialists, human rights bodies, and global institutions must examine the treaty abeyance, considering established international water law, customary obligations, and rights-based governance. Upholding treaty commitments, strengthening transparency, and protecting downstream communities are indispensable to ensuring that this strategically vital basin remains a source of cooperation rather than conflict.
In conclusion, India’s use of the term “abeyance” masks a substantive violation of the Indus Waters Treaty with wide-ranging legal, environmental, and human rights implications. The unilateral move is not only a blatant breach of international norms but also a dangerous precedent for transboundary water governance globally. Genuine confidence-building measures, international monitoring, and renewed bilateral engagement are urgently needed so that water continues to serve as a bridge for cooperation in South Asia.
The writer is a lawyer.